Slashdot Mirror
Interviews: Ask Malcolm Gladwell a Question
Malcolm Gladwell is a speaker, author, and staff writer for The New Yorker since 1996. Gladwell's writing often focuses on research in the social sciences and the unexpected connections or theories made from such research. His books: The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, Outliers: The Story of Success, and David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants are all New York Times best sellers. Malcolm has agreed to give us some of his time to answer any question you may have. As usual, ask as many as you'd like, but please, one per post.
Well, are you?
Ten-thousand hours (~3.4 years if a regular job) is Gladwell's estimate of temporal mastery. With that being said, the Mozarts like Carlsen or Fischer learn faster and become World Champion. What is the difference between the Mozarts and 3.4 years? Is it there some passionate rage to absorb and decipher patterns that magnetizes them to a particular domain or is it their consistent, well-designed regimen for reaching the upper echelons (like Lalzo Polgar's systemic approach with Judith and Susan)? If it is "pure" passion, then will people who find their true calling and invest appropriate time (e.g. have an OCD mentality) always see the unquestionable results? If it is "pure" regimen, then will following the same systematic approach always see the overarching performance? One thing to keep in mind is are these skills transferable to other domains? Is there a way to tackle a number of domains in the same 10,000 hours with an abstract approach? What about the time to create "new" domains rather than to "solve" problems in a particular domain? Is there some sort of estimate for that? Malcolm could possibly use those clues for his sequel to "Outliers" appropriately called "Pioneers". Any thoughts?
Today, your continued belief in the Tabula Rasa myth seems increasingly outdated and contradicted by a wide variety of research from many notable evolutionary psychologists and genetics researchers. How do you continue to believe that intelligence and ability is not significantly genetic despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
The areas you work in focus on very small sample sizes: software billionaires, major cultural shifts, and cases where the most improbable result happened.
Within these areas, you've developed mental frameworks off of shared elements between each. This runs into a problem, the Texas Sharpshoot fallacy. You pick out some characteristics that are shared by the things you're looking at, and then the only available data to confirm your hypothesis is the data you extracted your predictions from.
How did you address this when researching your books?
Why would you answer the questions of a bunch of stinky neckbeards who are only going to twist your words and try to inject their own agenda into your ideas to make them seem more insightful than they really are? Slashtards aren't interested in what you have to say, they just want someone to agree with their own thoughts or they'll come to the understanding that they're not that bright at all.
For example, read anything this chump has to say. He's a special kind of stupid.
Firstly, I'm a huge fan of your work.
Secondly, when preparing for your breakout role in 'A Clockwork Orange', did you, at the time, expect it to have such a long-reaching impact?
I'm curious to know what your take is on a basic income for all US citizens versus our current 'conditional' welfare system. What do you think short term and long term outcome would be? Would the increased tax burden on the upper classes result in a total collapse rendering a basic income useless? My personal opinion is that it is necessary given the increasing rate of job automation coupled with our increasing population size (not to mention aging). Am I delusional? If so, why?
Your books are full of bullshit masquerading as research, yet they sell like pancakes. What is the secret?
There is a positive feedback between human confirmation bias and reliance on information sources which increasingly give us what we want (e.g. Google/Facebook "filter bubbles", Amazon "if you like this... you'll like that." Do you expect this to create more social balkanization and extremism or other social effects? Is there anything we can do to stop or slow this process?
...and now I'm an expert at cherry-picked anecdotes, post-hoc sophistry and false dichotomies. -Peter Lynn
You have made a career out of writing books that popularize scientific findings - it seems like this is a task fraught with potential dangers, in terms of representing something that your readers misinterpret and misapply, or perhaps taking a published study and drawing an unwarranted conclusion yourself that attracts the ire of the original researchers. Certainly, much science journalism lately can be criticized for sensationalizing scientific results in the pursuit of better headlines, sometimes at the cost of being deliberately misleading. Can you expound a bit on the issues you've run into as a purveyor of scientific results, and explain how you balance the need for a faithful presentation of the source material with the desire to find something relatable and compelling enough to write a book about?
I've recently self-published a book dealing with society, technology, and the overused concept of Innovation. I had a great deal of fun writing it, and would like to contribute to a magazine or newspaper on a regular basis. I'm curious though, with so much "stuff" out there now - what's the best way to get a foot in the door and start writing content to broader audiences?
BTW Saw you speak in Seattle Town Hall - loved your talk
I read your book about Black Swans. What do you think is the next (or current) Black Swan?
...comes from being able to distract the guard. Any party crasher would know that...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Do you think you'd still be interested in science if you had gone to graduate school?
I imagine that the different circles you run in might have dramatically different responses to the religious emphasis in your recent work. What kind of reactions (wanted and unwanted) have you gotten from your recent move towards Christianity?
Your book "Talent is Overrated" is misquoted and misinterpreted in many places, but seems to say that anyone can become a world-class expert with enough effort and time.
What should someone do to become a world-renowned expert?
Can you give us a plan or list of steps to take - something that's not garbled by news media reporting?
Can you clarify a summary of the books conclusions, so that others can embark on that journey?
Hello Mr Gladwell,
I read one of your articles for my English class last semester, I believe it was titled, "Small Change / Why the revolution will not be tweeted." In it - if I remember correctly - you speak about the relationship between social media and those who use it as a catalyst for change, while referencing the difference between strong and weak ties. At the time of the article ISIS/ISIL had not yet formed, but now that it has, we are being shown time and time again the effectiveness of social media to both recruit foreign fighters, and fuel the continued conflict. Do you feel that this group and it's actions have altered your stance on the role social media plays in social change? Or do you consider these examples similar to the ones outlined in your article (e.g. Arab spring)?
Follow-up: If your views haven't changed, do you believe that social media will continue to function as a source of "weak ties" in perpetuity? Or can it evolve into something more substantial?
If You Had a Machine That Could Build Anything?
We've got dramatic and sudden changes forecasted in the use of automation in various industries. The trucking industry alone could change in a few short years with the advent of self-driving vehicles, leaving millions out of work. What kind of social impact do you foresee with these developments - do you think this kind of automation will be a fundamentally different kind of technological advance than our society has previously dealt with?
In David and Goliath, you show that the highest science students at U of Maryland are more likely to become scientists than the lowest science students at Harvard, despite the fact that the Harvard students were, before college, much more successful. The idea being that the best place to develop is at a level where you are successful. This is the opposite of the conventional wisdom for soccer. In that world, the consensus for developing players is that they should get on the best team they possibly can, even if that means they don’t regularly play in league matches. Supposedly, being around better players in practice outweighs the lack of actual game experience. This question comes up for American players regularly. Should they stay in MLS, where they start and gets lots of playing time, or move to a better team in a better league in Europe, where they often struggle to see the field? So my question is, is Soccer different than Engineering in some fundamental way, or has the soccer world just not read David and Goliath? Would a rising American soccer player be better of on the Bayern Munich reserve team or starting for the LA Galaxy?
http://shameproject.com/report...
Why did you, after college, attend the National Journalism Center, a corporate-funded program created to counter the mediaâ(TM)s alleged âoeanti-business biasâ?
Why, as someone who is half-Jamaican, have you repeatedly associated yourself (and apparently continue to do so) with the white supremacist organization EPPC, which fights activists for economic justice?
Why did you write for American Spectator, which churned out anti-Clinton conspiracy theories?
Why did you recycle tobacco industry propaganda and quote lobbyists for Washington Post articles you "wrote"? Why did Phillip Morris consider you, according to their internal documents, to be a "friend" who could be counted on for pro-tobacco-industry stories?
Why did you clearly promote drugs for treating ADHD in kids, in which you heavily quoted researchers who were paid heavily by the pharma industry?
Why did you cite a pharma-industry cited study and defend the industry when it was attacked for high drug costs?
Why did you blame the victims in the Enron collapse, defending executives who committed gross fraud?
Please help metamoderate.
Do you ever think about what ever became of some of those kids who might've been NHL stars, had they been born in the right month so they could get placement and coaching in the junior leagues? Once these overlooked kids become teenagers, let's say, is there anything that can be done to restart their careers in hockey so they'd have a shot at the pros?
(Obviously this is most interesting for its potential application to other activities, the same reason you brought it up in your book).
it sucks, right?
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
Black Swan II, with Natalie Portman, Lacy Chabert, and the Olsen twins. Filming starts in 2015.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow ?
Congratulations on your 4:54 in the Fifth Avenue mile.
http://www.runnersworld.com/ce...
How fast do you think you could run a mile if you spent 10,000 hours training for it?
Where is your favorite spot to look at people.
This is the royal jackhole who took a contract to put out propaganda about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange? Screw him to hell and beyond.
You are so bloody ignorant your mental instability is really besides the point! What an effing idiot!!!
Do frequent /.?
Why did you steal Art Garfunkel's hair?
And to Slashdot, just count each request for modding up and each +1 as a "1 question per post".
No need repeating the questions that SuperBanana has already made.
We could, but then what's the point of moderation, right?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
... you should at least take into consideration the fact that automation has been increasing for over a century, as well as population, and yet unemployment has remained relatively constant
I am not necessarily worried about unemployment; I am worried about the increasing gap between the elite and everyone else. Early automation created the need for the middle class, as the wealthy needed trained people to run the machines. But in the past 40 years automation has become far more capable and sophisticated. It requires less people to run modern machines, but they need to be far more skilled than the last generation. This has lead to the shrinking middle class, the rising 1%, and also the rising upper middle class.
Accelerated, more sophisticated automation didn't by itself led to a shrinking of the middle class. It is not even the primary factor. Globalization did that. A middle class that was not educationally prepare to move out of what I call "manual/rudimentary" manufacturing, and a national difficulty to operate efficiently, those two played a significant role.
Remember, middle class used to denote blue collar jobs.
But those jobs started to go bye bye quite some time ago. It even preceded 2000's globalization and contemporary automation. The blue-collar middle class built around the auto industry was hurt significantly when it got to compete against Japanese auto makers. Middle class jobs built around the semi conductor industry got severely affected when it could not compete against Taiwanese and Japanese semiconductors.
In the early 90's, way before I got into college I used to work as an electronic welder out in Burbank, CA. Nice gig, but you know what, that type of job went somewhere else. A lot of people back then did not realize the seismic change, and were not equipped to re-adapt.
It used to be the case that Grandpa would work in a good gig, a decent gig, that provided everything he needed, savings, a car and a house. Dad then would work on the same. And then the son. Nothing wrong with that. One generation would pick the trades of the previous one.
That continuity started to break around the late 70's, early 80's, with a full spinal breakage by the late 90's. That generational-job continuity I refer to was possible because there was no industrial competition to speak off. The end of that was inevitable.
The younger generations (some X's and most millennials) are better equipped to make the transition. It's the people within the 35-45 bracket who came out unprepared, those are the ones that are going to be limping for some time, maybe forever.
Automation has very little to do with it because, without globalization, those people displaced by automation would have gone to do something else with little external pressure off international competition.
The country is going to adapt, but a lot of people are going to be limping economically till that happens.
What is your opinion on how unimaginable technological revolutions of the future (quantum computers, nano-technology, bio-mechanical medicines, colonies on mars, etc) affect the assertions from all your books? What future technology are you most looking forward to?
It has been over eight years since you wrote "Million-Dollar Murray." Do you have any updates, or further considerations on the topic of large, distribution-based oversights in policy which you want "Murray's" readers to consider?
This is probably one of the most unfriendly forums to yourself that you could possibly engage for feedback. Do you feel that you must defend yourself to the most critical audience? Or did you pull a Malcolm Gladwell and jump into a topic that you know nothing about it and then when you realize your in over your head, decide to try and twist the evidence to fit your ill conceived hypothesis?
Mr. Gladwell, thanks a bunch for taking questions from us! I read you book 'Blink' and it was definitely value-added, esp. the story about war games...and how they gamed the war games.
My question: How do you, personally, evaluate research science? How do you differentiate the good research from hype? What is your process for evaluating scientific research?
I ask because everyone in media is quoting "research" now..."pop science" is a thing in our culture...I'm interested in how *you* a person known for writing about science, evaluates the research.
___________
When I did data analysis in grad school, any human survey research would automatically send me to the Methodology section to see **the actual text of the questionaire** that was given. I find that helps me fight through the hype of an unscrupulous article
Thank you Dave Raggett
one and done.
>are all New York Times best sellers
Can we have information on what books are best sellers without the result being interfered with by a crappy newspaper?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
In your opinion, is there an intellectual stratification going on in the United States?
According to the world bank, 215 million people live outside of the country of their birth. If counted separately, this "Nomadistan" would be the 4th largest nation in the world, ahead of Pakistan, Brazil, Japan, Mexico and all of the countries of Europe, Africa and South America. The people of Nomadistan don't have the same rights as natives of their adopted home. They face xenophobia, political scapegoating, economic hardship, workplace discrimination, racial profiling and harassement and very few have the right to vote in their new home. Facing barriers to full integration, many will chose to align their alliegence along political, religious or ethnic dimensions rather than by geography. With global communication replacing the the geographically cohesive forces of religion, television and radio-- the people of Nomadistan ever be accepted into their geographic melting pot. How can we prevent wars between the colocated nations of Nomadistan and Proxima Xenophobica?
Jobs face little friction as they migrate towards the places where the cost of labor is lowest. Workers, however, face considerable friction when attempting to follow those jobs. What affect will this imbalance have on the average worker? Will the affect be greater than or less than the affect of robots?
F for failing to follow instructions. 1 question per post, then you can save the world from this diabolical madman, hero boy.
You’re a fantastic writer and I sometimes wonder if your writing skill allows you to make points more compellingly than evidence supports. For example, I read your article and book about Paul Ekman (micro-expressions). I was really fascinated by your writing on the subject. Then I read three of Ekman’s books all of which I found really unimpressive. Not only did he not explain his work but his books were rife with name dropping, naval gazing repetition and other meaningless prose. I came to the conclusion that his work is substantially overrated. Later I read that there is significant doubt about the information to glean from micro-expressions.
With that in mind are you concerned that your skills in writing results in ideas you write about being valued far more than is justified by the science? Do you really think Ekman’s work makes sense?
In the Tipping Point you advance the argument that it was better policing against minor infractions that reduced crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
"Economist Steven Levitt and Malcolm Gladwell have a running dispute about whether the fall in New York City's crime rate can be attributed to the actions of the police department and "Fixing Broken Windows" (as claimed in The Tipping Point). In Freakonomics, Levitt attributes the decrease in crime to two primary factors: 1) a drastic increase in the number of police officers trained and deployed on the streets and hiring Raymond W. Kelly as police commissioner (thanks to the efforts of former mayor David Dinkins) and 2) a decrease in the number of unwanted children made possible by Roe v. Wade, causing crime to drop nationally in all major cities -- "[e]ven in Los Angeles, a city notorious for bad policing"."
However, it looks like the drop in crime is most closely correlated with the fall in environmental lead (mostly from reducing the used of leaded gasoline). Since other places have seen their crime rate fall without drastic changes in policing, what do you think of the lead and crime connection? See also:
"America's Real Criminal Element: Lead; New research finds Pb is the hidden villain behind violent crime, lower IQs, and even the ADHD epidemic. And fixing the problem is a lot cheaper than doing nothing. "
http://www.motherjones.com/env...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
It has been 8+ years since you wrote "Million Dollar Murray." Are there any updates to that story you would like "Murray's" readers to consider?
Boyce Rensberger, your erstwhile editor at the Washington Post, said this a year ago in the comments section of this article:
Gladwell is the same Gladwell as when I was his editor at The Washington Post. At first, I fell for his approach and brought him over to the science pod from the Post's business staff. Then I realized that he cherry picks research findings to support just-so stories. Every time I sent him back to do more reporting on the rest of the story, he moaned and fumed.
When I read his proposal for "The Tipping Point," I found it to be warmed over epidemiology. It was based on a concept and a perception so old it was already an ancient saying about straw and a camel's back. But gussied up in Malcolm's writing style, it struck the epidemiologically naive as brilliant. Brilliant enough to win an advance of more than $1 million.
What's your response?
when he saw you wrote about the "Igon Value" problem? Wasn't he a math professor? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/I...
I would be very interested how gladwell as a Canadian American views the cultural differences across the Atlantic, and between Canada and the United States.
Why do you substitute jargon for logical analysis. Do you think bullshit sells more books?
work in progress
Would you care to address your time as a paid stooge for the tobacco industry and big pharma?
Elaborate on what ways have technological advances altered or impacted your craft. In terms of research I imagine that you must have begun as a Journalist at the end of the card catalogue era. Many research studies and books are available via internet yet you continue to frequent libraries, perhaps due to the types of items and information you find within the library. Further, first person interviews are a basis to your books. Explain the significance of the face-to-face or one-on-one and the technological tools which assist you with those interviews. Also, do you ever utilize pen and paper and notebooks? Gracias!
As a statistician, I am seriously annoyed with the usual Left-Right dichotomy we see in most press articles. While I like the Political Compass I am a bit nervous of their clustering algorithm, and the questions they use to feed the analytics. Even more interesting is Johathan Haidt who has achieved some TEDTalk fame describing a five-dimensional feature space (though he does try to reduce to two clusters - liberals and conservatives). So I pose a two part question, (1) do you think the public discourse is hampered by the popular press always reducing politicians and voters to "liberals" and "conservatives"? And if you are concerned, (2) what can we do to push back against such simplifications, especially here on Slashdot?
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
I think your best book by far is "Blink", especially the part about decomposing decision-making statistically to create organisations that can blink. Your example was about how a hospital ER ward created a triage protocol for deciding how to treat cardiac patients. My question : do you know if your revelation of this approach has led to anyone else following the hospital's lead?